In retrospect, I should have just included a statement about my disagreement with information showing why. I have done this before, but was thinking of taking the route of not promoting such sites whatsoever, but the baby with the bathwater adage holds true. It would have been better that Shermer's readers found this site as opposed to a dead link! - John-Michael P. Talboo

[911 Blogger Comment:] How unbelievably ignorant. I love how he speaks in incredibly general terms throughout the article to conceal evidence, such as how he says "All evidence for thermite is thus far inconclusive" without elaborating on said evidence. He doesn't mention the red/gray chips with explosive tendencies and identical chemical signatures. He just says "it's inconclusive". Regardless, pretty much all of his rebuttals have been refuted at some point or another already. This is just more of the same. - Arcterus

Paragraph 1:

Like unsinkable rubber duckies, everytime you push down the fatuous arguments of the 9/11 “truthers,” who believe that the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks on that fateful day in September, they just pop back up. In response to my blog here, 9/11 Truthers Foiled by 12/25 Attack, the “truthers” have fired back with a series of questions for me, not about Al Qaeda and bin Laden taking credit for the Xmas day underwear bomber, or for 7/7, or Lisbon, or the attack on the World Trade Center buildings in the early 1990s, but on specific “anomalies” in the collapse of the WTC buildings, in the mistaken belief that if I cannot address each and every anomaly they believe they have found, then this is proof positive that Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld, and company are guilty. Here is their challenge to me: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/01/response-to-michael-shermer.html

Mr. Shermer this blog has tackled most of the subjects you mention. By all means try to rebunk this nuanced commentary...

Paragraph 3:His next attempt is classic 911 debunker obfuscation. Rather than dealing with the fact that Molten Steel was discovered in the rubble pile (and that this was due to thermate incendiary action) we are told that molten steel is not necessary to cause a collapse of the buildings since office fires need only weaken the steel. Apart from the fact that no steel framed high rise structure has ever completely collapsed due to fires, he avoids the point that Molten Steel was present. Hello !!

Paragraph 4:

He resorts to the "buildings were 95 empty space argument..." Well on the atomic level we are also mostly empty space. He avoids basic common sense here.

Claim #1: The collapse of the towers looked exactly like controlled demolitions.

Protec: No they did not. The key to any demolition investigation is in finding out the “where”—the actual point at which the building failed. All photographic evidence shows World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2 failed at the point of impact. Actual implosion demolitions always start with the bottom floors. Photo evidence shows the lower floors of WTC 1 and 2 were intact until destroyed from above.

Counter claim: Not all demolition collapses begin from the bottom floors. The towers demolitions could easily be started at any point in the buildings if they were rigged from top to bottom.

Claim #2: But they fell right down into their own footprint.

Protec: They did not. They followed the path of least resistance and there was a lot of resistance. Buildings of 20 stories or more do not topple over like trees or reinforced towers or smokestacks. Imploding demolitions fall into a footprint because lower stories are removed first. WTC debris was forced out away from the building as the falling mass encountered intact floors.

Protec: Not according to those who handled the steel. The chain of procession is clearly documented, first at ground Zero by Protec and later at the Fresh Kills site by Yannuzzi Demolition. The time frame (months) before it was shipped to China was normal.

Claim #7: WTC7 was intentionally “pulled down” with explosives. The building owner himself was quoted as saying he decided to “pull it.”

Protec: Building owners do not have authority over emergency personal at a disaster scene. We have never heard “pull it” used to refer to an explosive demolition. Demolition explosive experts anticipated the collapse of WTC7, and also witnessed it from a few hundred feet away and no one heard detonations.

Claim #9: Anyone who denies that explosives were used is ignoring evidence.

Protec: Most of our comments apply to the differences between what people actually saw on 9/11 and what they should have seen had explosives been present. The hundreds of men and women who worked to remove debris from ground zero were some of the countries most experienced and respected demolition veterans. They of all people processed the experience and expertise to recognize evidence of controlled demolition if it existed. None of these people has come forward with suspicions that explosives were used.

Counter claim: Protec and others working on the clean up need to be interviewed and investigated. We have many witnesses on record indicating there was molten steel. We have scientific analysis and pictures of molten steel. Despite the evidence here we have spokespeople, defending the Government account, saying that this is not true.

The differences we see between the Protec expectations and reality can be accounted for via their own denial of evidence and the fact that non-standard techniques were used to bring down these buildings.

Summary:

To believe anything Shermer presents, one must abandon all logic, the Laws of physics, and the evidence of your own eyes. We are witness here to a poor attempt at disinformation.

No one will believe such obvious lies.

Mr. Shermer, you cannot fool all the people all of the time. Facts have a nasty way of sorting things out. You should know better.